Hey guys! A while ago I wrote up an imperfect language analysis so students could critique it and pull out what was good and what was bad. Someone asked me for a sample LA over a pm, and this was the first thing I thought of. SO - If you're up for some 'different' type of English study, HERE IS YOUR CHANCE TO MAKE ME LOOK LIKE A FOOL
. Please, don't be scared of me taking offence or anything - here is your chance of shredding an essay without fear of "oh, what if the other person is actually better than me and I'm fucking up their education". This is all benefits and no negatives for you guys
. Whatever you critique, I'll tell you whether or nor I disagree and justify myself
I also can't be bothered finding the article and wouldn't be able to upload it if I could (copyright), but I assure you that the contention isn't wrong and I chose good evidence to analyse
*It's pretty long, you don't have to write that much for a 10/10.
*There also might be some weird shit that even I didn't intend, it was written at 3am
Spoiler
As public transport use has reached a statistical peak in Australia, there has been much political discussion as to how a dense passenger load on trains and buses could be dispersed throughout the morning; one suggestion is to delay the beginning of school days. In The Daily Messenger’s satirical editorial “Later school start: The worst idea of the week?”, the writer contends that a later school start would result in worse afternoon peak hour traffic; congestion would be lessened by increasing public transport services in the morning. The tone of the piece begins with casual condescension and steadily transitions into a more logical tone in order to better entertain and persuade members of the full-time workforce reading the newspaper. An overarching appeal to reason is used throughout the piece the create images of a dysfunctional society should school start times be shifted forward. Complementing the humour of the editorial is a captioned cartoon featuring a stern mother and her son.
Initially, the editorial accentuates the traits of the ‘worst idea of the week’ to later humourously humiliate the concept of delays to school start times. “On guard” connotes the attack of “silly ideas” to be a literal one and positions the audience to laugh at the mental image of a forever vigilant newspaper fighting off ludicrousness one idea at a time. The editor extends upon this humour, with the sarcastic description of “our beloved politicians” intended to make the reader feel a sense of ease at the familiar derisiveness of the piece. Whilst the humour and ease is good for a laugh, it holds a direct potential to subtly undermine any opposition to the editorial; the audience is likely to associate the opposition with a joke and subsequently not take any potential rebuttal to the editorial seriously. A sense of familiarity is compounded upon as the author frames the people creating the silly ideas as “chauffeur-driven”, as this is in direct contrast to the regularity experienced by the ‘everyman’ in the workforce target audience. Such a contrast serves to widen the gap between the target audience and the opposition created by the piece’s opening humour, as the ‘posh’ opposition is positioned as incapable of driving themselves, along with not being able to generate an idea opposite to “wacky or deluded”. Proceeding the heavily jocular opening of the piece, the writer asserts that the “proposal for a later school start certainly takes the cake”. This immediately creates associations between the idea and the idiocy required to support the idea outlined by the initial satire. The idiomatic phrase “takes the cake” also serves to further ingratiate the writer with the audience because of the relatable and familiar language; it also suggests that this notion is the most idiotic of all, which paints the idea as laughable in the audience’s mind and further compounds upon the opening humour. Use of humour and familiar language in this way invokes a sense of comradery between writer and audience, and positions the reader to be more receptive to the article’s coming arguments.
Following the derisive opening, the editor conjures images of terrible occurrences as a result from later school days and utilises strong hyperbolic language to do so. The author intends to make the reader feel as if the current school day schedule is inherent to the nation’s identity and to change it would “change the way the whole world works”. Such hyperbolic language is utilised as an appeal to the audience’s sense of tradition and, furthermore, targets the reader’s fear of change. Readers are made to feel as if everything they know will change or disappear with a shift in the school day schedule, which promotes a large sense of discomfort and fear. This is reinforced by an apocalyptic vibe created by the editor with words such as “chaos” and “edge of destruction” used to invoke a sense of instability. When used in conjunction with a list of effected parties such as: “businesses, public utilities”, “parents”, “drivers”, “shopkeepers”, “sleepless grannies” and “teachers”, such connotations position the audience to feel as if the school day is the foundation of modern society, and if the school day is changed, so too is the vital foundation. The editor utilises their chaotic creation as infrastructure for their rebuttal; they assert that any spread of the commuter peak during the morning would cause worse congestion in the afternoon, due to the school day’s potentially later finish. The clichéd statement “What you gained on the roundabout, you would lose on the swings” serves to reinforce the sense of familiarity held by the reader and also convey the redundancy of shifting the school day forward. Coupled with the potential ramifications of a shift forward, the logical rebuttal is intended to make the notion of a shift even more “silly” in the eyes on the target audience.
As the article transitions to a more logical, formalised method of argument, so too does the tone of the piece morph into something more calm and reasonable. This variation in tone serves to demonstrate the seriousness of the editor’s argument and contrast the humour in a way that provides a credible depth to the piece. The writer parallels their tone with the introduction of both expert and statistical evidence that is oft used as reinforcement for the opposition’s argument. They source “Oxford University sleep psychologists” that argue for a shift forward in school times due to the fact that teenagers are “biologically wired” to stay up late. However, as Oxford is the most recognisably credible source among many, the editor’s argument is marred when later points directly contradict what was implied by Oxford. The unknown “Concordia State Health Department” hypothesised that late bedtimes for adolescents are directly caused by a culture that “doesn’t value sleep”. Such a large discrepancy in evidence creates inconsistencies in the author’s rebuttal and subsequently detracts from the author’s credibility trustworthiness. This weakens the persuasiveness of further evidence in the form of “a quick survey”, as if a state health department can disagree with Oxford then there is nothing to stop more untrustworthy evidence from being utilised. “Quick” also implies a potential for mistakes and connotes a sense of incompletion that also detracts from the editorial’s credibility. Consequently, the audience is likely to take the evidence provided by the writer with a grain of salt and not move be influenced further towards the writer’s contention.
Complementing the editorial is a cartoon titled “A study of inertia: a physics student at rest”. The cartoon features a stern mother ordering her teenage son out of bed in the late morning. Humour is used similarly in the image as it is in the article; the speech bubble containing “Hey, Einstein, how about converting some of that mass into energy and getting out of bed?” serves to degrade teenagers and position them as lazy. This is reinforced by the stereotypically carefree position of the adolescent’s hands tucked behind his head. Working in direct conjunction with the written language “encourage further laziness” and “impair young people’s readiness to join the work force”, the clock displaying 9am implies that the teen is being deliberately late for a school day, rather than being late due to any biological wiring. Such a combination of written and visual language serves to instill a sense of concern in the audience, as adolescents similar to this teen will soon be joining the workforce that currently employs the target audience. This positions the audience to be fearful of a later school day as it could result in an even more unprepared generation entering the workforce and a subsequent sub-par working environment for the target audience.
The editor uses an appropriate mix of jocular and logical language throughout the piece which works well to debase opposing arguments whilst offering strong, original assertions. The writer is heavily bias in their pursuit to persuade the audience that a shift forward in the school day is the “worst idea of the week” and should not go ahead. A pervasive use of familiar language in conjunction with humour works well in relation to the target audience of workforce ‘everymen’, however incongruous use of expert evidence has the potential to damage the editor’s credibility and detract from some parts of the piece.
Home
Help
Search
Login
